Jared M. Strauss
How Judge Strauss rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Strauss
Jared M. Strauss became a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of Florida on January 29, 2020. Based in Fort Lauderdale, he assumed matters previously assigned to Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer.
Judge Strauss's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Strauss, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Discovery
Make specific discovery objections; general boilerplate objections will not be sustained.
“All objections to discovery requests must be specific. The parties shall not make generalized, vague, or boilerplate objections. Nonspecific objections do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules and will not be sustained by this Court.”
Discovery
Confer with opposing counsel to narrow a claimed irrelevant, excessive, or burdensome request before objecting.
“If a party believes a discovery request seeks irrelevant information, is disproportionate, or is unduly burdensome, that party shall confer in good faith with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of the request before asserting these objections.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026).
How Judge Strauss decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Watson v. Kijakazi, he recommended affirming the Commissioner after finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ, denying the claimant’s summary-judgment motion and granting the Commissioner’s.
“3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED.”
Procedural preferences
In Bell v. Macy’s Corp. Services, he recommended denying arbitration without prejudice because the parties genuinely disputed whether the plaintiff had opted out of the arbitration program.
“The Report [ECF No. 69] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 48] is DENIED without prejudice. ... A bench trial will be held pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Section 4 to determine the limited issue of whether Plaintiff timely opted out of arbitration.”
In Warlick, he denied another amendment after repeated deficient complaints and delay in the proceedings.
“At the very least, even if Plaintiff has not acted with the intent to delay, it is hard not to conclude that his conduct to this point has caused undue delay in the proceedings.”
In Glaxo Group Limited v. Transpire Bio Inc., he partly granted a protective-order request after finding that the privilege log did not justify protection for every consultant communication.
“Transpire has not provided the Court with a sufficient factual basis to conclude each communication should be protected.”
Cautions
In Doe v. Fenix International, Ltd., he recommended dismissal of a Trafficking Victims Protection Act claim against an online platform owner under Communications Decency Act Section 230 immunity.
“Magistrate Judge Strauss's R&R [ECF No. 73] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. The Plaintiff's Objections [ECF No. 74] are OVERRULED. ... Fenix's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 65] is GRANTED. Count I of the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 63] is DISMISSED with prejudice. ... The Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [ECF No. 75] is DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Judge Strauss has since issued a report, recommending that the Court grant summary judgment as to Plaintiff's federal claims and remand Plaintiff's remaining state claims ... Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 47] is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's federal claims. Plaintiff's remaining state claims are REMANDED”
“this Court affirms Judge Strauss's finding that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to comply with Rules 8 and 10 ... the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (DE [23]) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (DE [18]) is GRANTED ... All causes raised herein by complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 46] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. Defendant's Objections [ECF No. 50] are OVERRULED. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence [ECF No. 24] is DENIED.”
“The Report recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Appellate Attorney's Fees ... Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $19,165.00.”
“Magistrate Judge Strauss recommends granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs and awarding Defendant taxable costs in the amount of $4,663.25 ... Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 131] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
R&R on competency rather than a party motion. Strauss recommended, and Judge Ruiz adopted over the defendant's objections, a finding that Xavier Rivers was competent to stand trial or enter a plea, crediting Dr. Katherine E. Sunder's testimony in the absence of a contrary expert opinion. The disposition demonstrates Strauss's criminal competency-referral work.
“The Report recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 17] and grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18]. ... 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 17] is DENIED.”
“3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 107], is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part as follows: a. GRANTED as to Count I of the Complaint; and b. DENIED as to Counts II-IX of the Complaint.”
“The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 25] is GRANTED in part as to the Plaintiff's duty-to-warn claim. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction as to Defendants Gigi and Zroya, see [DE 8], is DENIED;”
“Defendants Gigi and Zroya's Motion to Dismiss [DE 51] is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; ... the Court now DISMISSES Plaintiffs' claims pled herein against Defendants Gigi and Zroya in favor of mediation and/or arbitration.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 53], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is GRANTED as to Counts III and VIII and DENIED as to all other counts.”
“Magistrate Judge Strauss's R&R [ECF No. 73] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. The Plaintiff's Objections [ECF No. 74] are OVERRULED. ... Fenix's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 65] is GRANTED. Count I of the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 63] is DISMISSED with prejudice. ... The Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [ECF No. 75] is DENIED.”
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, not for Judge Strauss: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 8,196 | 3.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 848 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 7,287 | 3.5 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 16 | 10.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 45 | 17.1 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 8,196 | 3.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,755 | 3.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 20,408 | 0 months |
| Sep 2022 | 8,287 | 3.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 8,536 | 3.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,657 | 3.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 9,471 | 3.7 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Strauss with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Strauss, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Strauss's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace